Mallgren v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-07143
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mallgren v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Mallgren lacked permission to file it.
Anthony Brian Mallgren’s action against the United States was dismissed without prejudice because he did not comply with the prior permission requirement. Any appeal from the order cannot proceed without payment of the appellate fee based on the court’s certification and denial of IFP status.
What happened
Anthony Brian Mallgren filed a new civil action against the United States in the Southern District of New York without paying the filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without paying it. The court treated this as a request to proceed without paying the fee.
A 2016 order had barred Mallgren from filing future civil actions without paying the fee unless he first obtained the court’s permission. Mallgren did not seek that permission before filing this action.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the earlier order. She also directed the clerk to enter judgment and denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate fee because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mallgren v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-07143
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
In a May 4, 2016 order, the court barred Anthony Brian Mallgren from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained leave, meaning permission, from the court. Mallgren then filed this new pro se action, meaning he was proceeding without a lawyer. He neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP, which would allow him to proceed without paying that fee.
Ruling
Because Mallgren had not paid the filing fee, the court understood that he sought to proceed IFP. But he had not obtained the permission required by the 2016 order. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to comply with that order. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against the United States.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. It also directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action for the reason stated in the order.
Effect
The dismissal was without prejudice, so the order did not state that the underlying claims were permanently barred. The separate denial of IFP status applies to an appeal from this order. The ruling was entered by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.